Bush: Year One in review
By W. James Antle III
web posted January 21, 2002
You may recall that when George W. Bush was running for
president, I was something less than a cheerleader for his
candidacy. I questioned his conservative credentials, flirted with
various third-party options and challenged the premise of his
candidacy (i.e., his appeal to people outside the Republican
base). How has he done after a year in office?
President Bush has been more conservative than any postwar
president other than Ronald Reagan. His record compares
favorably to Republicans Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon,
Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush. Only Reagan had more
impressive domestic policy accomplishments at this juncture of
his presidency. This has to be admitted, even by Bush's critics
on the right.
The Bush tax cut was not ideal. It did not cut taxes nearly
enough as a percentage of the economy or in terms of the overall
marginal-rate reduction. Lower marginal income tax rates do not
occur quickly enough, to the detriment of the economy. The tax-
rate increases of the 1990s were not repealed. But it marked
the first time marginal income tax rates were cut since 1986. Its
passage came even after Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT) decided to
bolt the Republican Party and despite the opposition of Sen.
John McCain (R-AZ) and liberal Sen. Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI).
Although even the original proposal - which was reduced to win
centrist support - could have been much larger, the tax reduction
as it passed was larger than most observers anticipated.
Not even the probable reemergence of the budget deficit has
caused Bush to yield to Democratic calls to abort supply-side
tax cuts going to upper-income taxpayers. To forgo such tax
cuts as advised by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) would impact
investment decisions and job creation. Roughly 80 percent of
those who would be hit by higher taxes are business owners filing
individual returns, who represent the small businesses responsible
for 82 percent of net job growth since the 1980s. Bush's tax
cut, if maintained, will allow the economy to perform better than
it would without it. Risk-takers will find better returns on their
investments and there will be greater incentives for productive
economic behavior.
On government spending, Bush has not been ideal either. Yet he
has shown sounder instincts on this front than either the
Democrats or congressional Republicans. When, pre-9/11, he
sought to limit most increases in federal spending to 4 percent,
Republican appropriators joined their Democratic analogues in
revolt. Even post-9/11, most of Bush's proposed spending
increases are in constitutionally mandated areas such as national
defense, with a handful of exceptions, such as his horrible
education bill (that Teddy Kennedy loves it tells you all you need
to know) and the unconscionable airlines' bailout. A willingness
to confront government spending has never been one of Bush's
strong suits, but it is worth noting that everyone else wielding
considerable Beltway heft is worse.
Bush should be applauded for withdrawing from the obsolete
ABM treaty. Not only is this a crucial first step toward building
a meaningful missile defense, but also the withdrawal was
completed without worsening our relations with Russia or even
impairing the administration's working relationship with
Democrats who are serious about foreign policy. The president
also appointed a very able commission to advance the idea of
free-market reform of Social Security, touching what was
previously thought to be the third rail of American politics. It is
to his credit that he has not allowed the Democrats to talk him
out of this idea based on misleading rhetoric about recent stock
market performance.
Many of Bush's appointments have been stellar. His
administration contains such luminaries as Donald Rumsfeld,
Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and John Ashcroft.
Conservatives concerned about the policy distance between
Rumsfeld and Powell should recall the similar relationship
between Caspar Weinberger and George Schultz during the
Reagan years. Mitch Daniels has been a tough budget director,
perhaps the best since Jim Miller during Reagan's second term.
Among Bush's best lower-level appointments are Kay Cole
James, Otto Reich (unjustifiably slurred by Chris Dodd, D-CT),
civil rights commissioner Peter Kirsanow and Michael Powell,
son of Colin.
As his dazzlingly high job-approval ratings attest, Bush has been
a remarkably unifying wartime leader. He has conducted himself
with both resolve (committing forces to Afghanistan and
trouncing the Taliban, in contradiction of conventional wisdom)
and restraint (not waging war against Islam or the entire Arab
world) while speaking forcefully and compassionately to the
nation following unspeakable terrorist violence. Only Rudy
Giuliani was a more compelling and comforting public official
following the 9/11 attacks.
Bush repudiated dumb Clinton policies in areas such as the
ridiculous Kyoto treaty, demonstrating his willingness to make
coalitions when necessary (as in the war on terrorism) but act
unilaterally in the US interest when that is necessary too (as in
this instance). He has moved away from Clinton's legacy-
seeking coddling of Yasser Arafat and has moved toward a truer
even-handedness in the region: Understanding of the Palestinians'
desire for self-government while supportive of the Israelis'
campaign against terrorism.
This president has also done as much as politically possible to
advance the pro-life cause, staking out a morally defensible if
practically risky compromise on embryonic stem-cell research
while coupling it with an eloquent televised defense of the
sanctity of human life. He has signaled his support for popular
abortion restrictions and reinstated the Mexico City policy. His
quiet but forceful movements on this issue are part of the reason
The Washington Post can report that he has emerged as the new
leader of religious conservatives.
Of course, Bush has not been perfect. Ramesh Ponnuru
summarized some of his faults remarkably well in National
Review: "But Bush and the conservative movement share
weaknesses: a reluctance to challenge liberal pieties concerning
race; failure to exploit the full potential of the new investor class;
blindness to the costs of continuous mass immigration; lack of
zeal to shrink government; a reactive approach to health care;
and a general lack of creativity."
Nearly every failing of the Bush presidency has revolved along
these lines. Bush has been foolish to promote an ill thought out
plan to amnesty illegal immigrants. His faith-based initiative
degenerated from a remarkable idea that would shift resources
from the welfare state to institutions that really have life-changing
power to a Great Society-like giveaway program likely to
threaten religious liberty in the long term. While he has made
good appointments to civil-rights positions he has been unwilling
to show leadership on racial preferences himself.
While Bush resisted the worst statist impulses following 9/11,
portions of the PATRIOT Act weakened constitutional
protections and created bad precedents future administrations
are sure to follow. Simply because powers are not currently
being abused does not mean that they will not be in the future.
Bush and Ashcroft have given both civil libertarians and security-
obsessed statists reasons to criticize them, but greater
consideration of the Bill of Rights is in order.
Bush has thus far exceeded expectations, including my own,
while demonstrating a degree of humility, dignity and class that
has been missing from the office of the presidency in recent
years. He deserves to be supported, but not uncritically. Let us
hope that he continues to build on his successes while the
conservative movement regains its voice to influence him
positively in other areas.
Consider this observation from Ponnuru: "Conservatives should
be grateful Bush is as conservative as he is, since they have no
independent political power to force him to be. As they
celebrate Bush's successes, they might profitably worry about
their own failures."
Conservatives have heeded Ponnuru on the former. It remains
to be seen if they hear the latter.
W. James Antle III is a senior writer for Enter Stage Right and
can be reached at wjantle@enterstageright.com.
Enter Stage Right - http://www.enterstageright.com